God

[ilovesatan]

If god is the one responsible for creating the weather, natural disasters as such and he knows that he is creating them and that they kill innocent lives, I call god the real evil of the world, not satan but god.

[twobitsmedia]

"worser" is 100% not a word. Any book that tries to prove a point with 'worser' anywhere in the writing should be burned and used to make smores, so that one could say the author contributed something to the world

wors-er (wrsr)
adv. & adj. Nonstandard
Worse.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worser

[desertghost]

If god is the one responsible for creating the weather, natural disasters as such and he knows that he is creating them and that they kill innocent lives, I call god the real evil of the world, not satan but god.

So, tell me.... you call God "evil" because of the natural disasters. But at the same time, does it bother you that its the same God who sends down rain, which helps crops grow and thus puts food on your plate? Youre going to stop eating now?

[Goat]

If god is the one responsible for creating the weather, natural disasters as such and he knows that he is creating them and that they kill innocent lives, I call god the real evil of the world, not satan but god.

So, tell me.... you call God "evil" because of the natural disasters. But at the same time, does it bother you that its the same God who sends down rain, which helps crops grow and thus puts food on your plate? Youre going to stop eating now?

Does the fact someone does good absolve them of their responsiblity of the bad they have done?

[desertghost]

Does the fact someone does good absolve them of their responsiblity of the bad they have done?

If you are talking about humans, its not really a "yes/no" kind of question. Different people, different "goods" and "bads". Some cases its "yes", some cases its "no".

If you are talking about the Creator of the universe, then realize that He has the power to create and destroy as He pleases. No question of "responsibility" here.
God is above all creation.

I know some people might be bitter over this, but thats the way it is.

[Goat]

Does the fact someone does good absolve them of their responsiblity of the bad they have done?

If you are talking about humans, its not really a "yes/no" kind of question. Different people, different "goods" and "bads". Some cases its "yes", some cases its "no".

If you are talking about the Creator of the universe, then realize that He has the power to create and destroy as He pleases. No question of "responsibility" here.
God is above all creation.

I know some people might be bitter over this, but thats the way it is.

Since in Genesis , it says we are made in God's image. It is written in Isaiah god created both Good and Evil.

So , just because someone makes something, that absolves him of the responsibly? I say I find that attitude disturbing. That is the ultimate 'might makes right' claim.

[desertghost]

Since in Genesis , it says we are made in God's image. It is written in Isaiah god created both Good and Evil.

The two verses are unconnected.
"In Gods image" means in terms of human sentience, judgement, reasoning etc. i.e - Humans are smarter than animals, but at the same time, has the potential for evil.

The original hebrew says "calamity" rather than the quality of evil.

So , just because someone makes something, that absolves him of the responsibly? I say I find that attitude disturbing. That is the ultimate 'might makes right' claim.

God is not just "someone", and what I said regarding Gods free will will not apply to humans.

God = Creator of the universe = Has absolute authority over his creation.
People = created beings = hold responsibility for their deeds and are answerable to God, whether or not they believe in Him, whether or not they like it.


Still on the same subject, some people actually do hold that view that just because they created life, they have authority to end it. They call themselves "pro-choice".

By your own argument, dont you think abortion is a case of "might makes right"?

If people can end a life that they created, then why cant the Creator terminate the lives of people whom he has created.

[Goat]

Since in Genesis , it says we are made in God's image. It is written in Isaiah god created both Good and Evil.

The two verses are unconnected.
"In Gods image" means in terms of human sentience, judgement, reasoning etc. i.e - Humans are smarter than animals, but at the same time, has the potential for evil.

The original hebrew says "calamity" rather than the quality of evil.

It uses the word that is the same in Genesis for 'knowledge of good and evil'.
While the term 'rah' can mean many things, in this context is appears to be
referring to 'moral evil'.

Yes, the Christians try to avoid that meaning. However, the Jewish translators
accept the term EVIL for that. Don't try to play the 'translation' game with a
nice Jewish boy.

So , just because someone makes something, that absolves him of the responsibly? I say I find that attitude disturbing. That is the ultimate 'might makes right' claim.

God is not just "someone", and what I said regarding Gods free will will not apply to humans.

That is the logical fallacy of 'special pleading'. It also makes 'objective morality' a joke, since it makes it God's whim. It also makes the concept of 'Good' a whim too, and evil.

God = Creator of the universe = Has absolute authority over his creation.
People = created beings = hold responsibility for their deeds and are answerable to God, whether or not they believe in Him, whether or not they like it.


Still on the same subject, some people actually do hold that view that just because they created life, they have authority to end it. They call themselves "pro-choice".

By your own argument, dont you think abortion is a case of "might makes right"?

If people can end a life that they created, then why cant the Creator terminate the lives of people whom he has created.

Either objective morals exist, and God is subject to them, or we are merely God's playthings, and there are no such things as morals.

And, you are bringing up a straw man about abortion. That has nothing to do with it. But, feel free to give yourself your illusions.

[justifyothers]

If god is the one responsible for creating the weather, natural disasters as such and he knows that he is creating them and that they kill innocent lives, I call god the real evil of the world, not satan but god.

Does satan step in to assist these innocents from destruction?
What is his purpose here, from your perspective?
Do you believe that God created satan? Does satan fear God?

[desertghost]

It uses the word that is the same in Genesis for 'knowledge of good and evil'.
While the term 'rah' can mean many things, in this context is appears to be
referring to 'moral evil'.
Yes, the Christians try to avoid that meaning. However, the Jewish translators
accept the term EVIL for that. Don't try to play the 'translation' game with a
nice Jewish boy.

"rah" is also the same Hebrew word thats used for words like "calamity", disaster" etc.

Now, observe the context in the original line from Isaiah, where God appears to be speaking using opposite meaning words. [/ub

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

"Light" and "darkness" are opposites complementing each other..."peace and evil" however are not. So nowhere is it apparent that the text means what you interpret it as. Mind you, the quote is taken from the very same very same version that people use to frame their case, that God "creates" evil...the KJV.

That is the logical fallacy of 'special pleading'. It also makes 'objective morality' a joke, since it makes it God's whim. It also makes the concept of 'Good' a whim too, and evil.

Not a logical fallacy. Rather the obvious logic that the Creator and man are not equals, as your way of seeing insists.

Either objective morals exist, and God is subject to them, or we are merely God's playthings, and there are no such things as morals.

Objective morals exist, but are meant for humans in their interactions. Its purely for the human domain. The Creator is not equals to his creation.

And, you are bringing up a straw man about abortion. That has nothing to do with it. But, feel free to give yourself your illusions.

It was off topic I agree 100%

But seeing how you view God and man in the same light, I drew parrallels on abortion and an act of natural disaster. (Im not saying one act is equal to the other morally, but both involve "a creator destroying a creation which was the original subject of the OP. )
Now from your stance, is it possible that you question the ethical nature of one creator(God) and not the other (the abortionist)? You dont even have to answer this on this thread, but just ask yourself if you have contradicting views.

[Goat]

It uses the word that is the same in Genesis for 'knowledge of good and evil'.
While the term 'rah' can mean many things, in this context is appears to be
referring to 'moral evil'.
Yes, the Christians try to avoid that meaning. However, the Jewish translators
accept the term EVIL for that. Don't try to play the 'translation' game with a
nice Jewish boy.

"rah" is also the same Hebrew word thats used for words like "calamity", disaster" etc.

Now, observe the context in the original line from Isaiah, where God appears to be speaking using opposite meaning words. [/ub

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

"Light" and "darkness" are opposites complementing each other..."peace and evil" however are not. So nowhere is it apparent that the text means what you interpret it as. Mind you, the quote is taken from the very same very same version that people use to frame their case, that God "creates" evil...the KJV.

That is the logical fallacy of 'special pleading'. It also makes 'objective morality' a joke, since it makes it God's whim. It also makes the concept of 'Good' a whim too, and evil.

Not a logical fallacy. Rather the obvious logic that the Creator and man are not equals, as your way of seeing insists.

Either objective morals exist, and God is subject to them, or we are merely God's playthings, and there are no such things as morals.

Objective morals exist, but are meant for humans in their interactions. Its purely for the human domain. The Creator is not equals to his creation.

And, you are bringing up a straw man about abortion. That has nothing to do with it. But, feel free to give yourself your illusions.

It was off topic I agree 100%

But seeing how you view God and man in the same light, I drew parrallels on abortion and an act of natural disaster. (Im not saying one act is equal to the other morally, but both involve "a creator destroying a creation which was the original subject of the OP. )
Now from your stance, is it possible that you question the ethical nature of one creator(God) and not the other (the abortionist)? You dont even have to answer this on this thread, but just ask yourself if you have contradicting views.

Do I view God and man in the same manner? I have to say, no, I do not.

The Isaiah passage is basically saying "God made everything" both good and bad.

The Chrisitan translators changed many meanings of words to be able to fit into their theology. Here is an extract from a Rabbi that explains things better.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/satan.html

n no part of the Bible is this more evident than in the Book of Job. In the first chapter of Job, Satan appears with other angels before God and suggests that Job's steadfast faithfulness would not withstand personal pain and utter destitution. Satan then requests from God the chance to test Job's virtue. The Almighty grants this request, but He meticulously outlines for Satan what he may and may not do when putting Job to the test. Satan obediently follows his Creator's instructions. Job is immediately put to the test and, by the third chapter, begins to struggle. He questions his Maker as to why he was created and, in a moment of despair, wishes aloud that he had perished in his mother's womb. Still, by the end of this unparalleled biblical narrative, Job's virtue prevails over Satan's unyielding torment.

While in Christian terms Job's personal spiritual triumph is a theological impossibility, in Jewish terms it stands out as the embodiment of God's salvation program for mankind. In Deuteronomy 30:15, the Torah attests to this principle and in Isaiah 45:7, the prophet echoes this message when he declares that the Almighty Himself creates evil.

This biblical principle, however, was apparently too problematic for the Christian translators of the NIV Bible (New International Version). They clearly recognized that a Bible which asserts that God creates evil calls into question one of Christendom's most cherished teachings on salvation. How can the church insist that man is totally depraved when his God placed him in a world where he is free to choose good over evil? How can the church hold to a doctrine of election or predestination when free will is man's to express? How can Christians maintain that God did not create evil when the Jewish scriptures clearly state otherwise?

Understandably, the NIV translators saw fit to alter the prophet's words by rendering the offensive Hebrew word rah as "disaster" instead of correctly translating it as "bad" or "evil." The NIV Bible therefore mistranslates Isaiah 45:7 to read,

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

The word "disaster" inserted by the NIV is so ambiguous that the uninformed reader would easily come to the conclusion that it refers to such things as earthquakes and hurricanes. This skewed understanding created by the NIV mistranslation effectively conceals Isaiah's original message. As mentioned above, the KJV (King James Version) does correctly translate this verse and render the Hebrew word rah as "evil."